The Rumor Mills have Begun

[Tommy]

SH...HE LIED and that is precisely why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.


Not quite true Scott. The judge said the jurors MAY disregard all or part of his testimony.


Judge Strom's instructions... You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness and the weight their testimony deserves.

[/b]

 

[Econ101]

SH...HE LIED and that is precisely why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.


Not quite true Scott. The judge said the jurors MAY disregard all or part of his testimony.


Judge Strom's instructions... You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness and the weight their testimony deserves.

[/b]

SH just believes judges themselves can convict without a jury. He must live in a different country.

 

[Sandhusker]

He's just SH - that explains everything. The best recruiter R-CALF ever had! :lol:

 

[Tam]

SH...HE LIED and that is precisely why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.


Not quite true Scott. The judge said the jurors MAY disregard all or part of his testimony.


Judge Strom's instructions... You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness and the weight their testimony deserves.

[/b]

Looks to me as if Judge Strom was telling them take only the parts that were verified by other CREDIBLE evidents meaning this was questionable evidents at best in his eyes. His instructions Look like a warning to the jurors to not believe everything you hear in a court of law unless it is verified by a CREDIBLE SOURCE.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH...HE LIED and that is precisely why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.


Not quite true Scott. The judge said the jurors MAY disregard all or part of his testimony.


Judge Strom's instructions... You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness and the weight their testimony deserves.

[/b]

Looks to me as if Judge Strom was telling them take only the parts that were verified by other CREDIBLE evidents meaning this was questionable evidents at best in his eyes. His instructions Look like a warning to the jurors to not believe everything you hear in a court of law unless it is verified by a CREDIBLE SOURCE.

If SH is right, and his only bias IS the truth :roll: , then Judge Strom was allowing a purjuror to testify in his courtroom. That would make him a bigger idiot than SH!

 

[Econ101]

SH...HE LIED and that is precisely why Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony.


Not quite true Scott. The judge said the jurors MAY disregard all or part of his testimony.


Judge Strom's instructions... You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness and the weight their testimony deserves.

[/b]

Looks to me as if Judge Strom was telling them take only the parts that were verified by other CREDIBLE evidents meaning this was questionable evidents at best in his eyes. His instructions Look like a warning to the jurors to not believe everything you hear in a court of law unless it is verified by a CREDIBLE SOURCE.

Tam, the jury was to be presented those other credible events and then make a decision on them, not the judge. Are you saying the judge was talking about things that were not presented at trial? Maybe he should have given the same instructions about Tyson witnesses.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: " This is an outrageous lie."

Hahaha! Prove it big talkin' little boy! Bring the proof to support the "market manipulation" allegation. Until you can, you got nothing.

The Pickett case proved that GIPSA was enforcing the PSA act because Pickett couldn't prove a PSA violation. Pickett proved my point that GIPSA had it right. YOU PACKER BLAMERS GOT NOTHING!


Now name me a newly formed cattle organization that does not lobby and tell me if John Lockie worked for OCM or keep dancing like you have been. You blamers are all the same.

OCM: "We might say that ~SH~'s credibility is at issue here. And how good is his credibility?"

Talk is cheap and no cheaper than from the packer blamer's cheap seats.

When you can prove anything I have stated to be incorrect WITH OPPOSING FACTS, then you'll have something. Until that time, you have nothing but cheap talk. Par for the deceptive R-CULT/OCM course.

Sandbag: "If SH is right, and his only bias IS the truth , then Judge Strom was allowing a purjuror to testify in his courtroom. That would make him a bigger idiot than SH!"

Still trying to use your phony argument that in order for someone to "LIE UNDER OATH" they have to be brought up on perjury charges. Hahaha! What a phony you are Sandbag!

Nobody changes their story unless they're lying. Just because Mike was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he didn't committ perjury. The proof of perjury is in changing your story. I guess Mike can consider himself lucky. Tyson should have sued his packer blaming ash when he said that Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black.

Mike lies continually but he tells packer blamers like you what they want to believe.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:

The Pickett case proved that GIPSA was enforcing the PSA act because Pickett couldn't prove a PSA violation. Pickett proved my point that GIPSA had it right. YOU PACKER BLAMERS GOT NOTHING!

Is that why JoAnn Waterfield resigned after the scathing report on GIPSA?

Now I see the little spin job of :

One industry source suggested that the upgrading of routine letters to investigations may have another interpretation: Frustrated GIPSA investigators, unable to extract information from packers and stockyards, upgraded the status of the paperwork as an investigative tool.

Was the Secretary of Agriculture preventing GIPSA officials from using the legal tools they have to get information from the packers? Lets see, the govt. of Canada can't get information from the packers and the govt. of the U.S. can't get information from the packers. Looks like the packers are running the show.

 

[Anonymous]

The problem here is that you have conspiring minds writing laws that are difficult to enforce. "M"COOL is a classic example. "M"COOL insists on US cattle being "born, raised, and processed in the U.S.", then prohibits the means to accomplish just that ("M"ID). The law as written is unenforceable then it will be the packer blamers blaming USDA for their inability to enforce an unenforceable law.

I have no doubts that packer information requests by GIPSA are no different. Whenever the government gets involved, you have excessive paperwork and beurocracy. When packers OF ALL SIZES fail to report this excessive paperwork, your conspiring mind kicks into overdrive.

Have you ever read a GIPSA report? Do you know what GIPSA's responsibilities are? I didn't think so.

Until GIPSA comes up with a smoking gun on price fixing, you packer blamers won't be satisfied. That's how your conspiring minds work.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Until GIPSA comes up with a smoking gun on price fixing, you packer blamers won't be satisfied. That's how your conspiring minds work. "

How are they going to come up with anything when they don't investigate?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Just because Mike was not brought up on perjury charges does not mean he didn't committ perjury."

SH, "I certainly believe in the "presumption of innocense". "

You're a dandy, SH.

 

[Econ101]

The problem here is that you have conspiring minds writing laws that are difficult to enforce. "M"COOL is a classic example. "M"COOL insists on US cattle being "born, raised, and processed in the U.S.", then prohibits the means to accomplish just that ("M"ID). The law as written is unenforceable then it will be the packer blamers blaming USDA for their inability to enforce an unenforceable law.

I have no doubts that packer information requests by GIPSA are no different. Whenever the government gets involved, you have excessive paperwork and beurocracy. When packers OF ALL SIZES fail to report this excessive paperwork, your conspiring mind kicks into overdrive.

Have you ever read a GIPSA report? Do you know what GIPSA's responsibilities are? I didn't think so.

Until GIPSA comes up with a smoking gun on price fixing, you packer blamers won't be satisfied. That's how your conspiring minds work.


~SH~

The smoking gun on GIPSA being nothing but an operative arm of the packers and their interests has already come out in a report on GIPSA, SH. Are you still misinformed about the report?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag,

I would have given Mike C. the benefit of the doubt on lying vs. simply being misinformed if he had not changed his story and had he not been caught in so many lies before. Nobody continues to say that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks after seeing actual cattle procurement records proving that statement false. Mike did because he couldn't accept the truth.

Sandbag: "How are they going to come up with anything when they don't investigate?"

That is a lie. You're getting as bad as Conman at lying.

GIPSA has conducted many investigations.

Conman: "The smoking gun on GIPSA being nothing but an operative arm of the packers and their interests has already come out in a report on GIPSA, SH."

The report revealed nothing all it did was expose the fact that packers OF ALL SIZES were not complying with the bloated beurocratic paperwork that was required by stupid laws made by packer blamers.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag,

I would have given Mike C. the benefit of the doubt on lying vs. simply being misinformed if he had not changed his story and had he not been caught in so many lies before. Nobody continues to say that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks after seeing actual cattle procurement records proving that statement false. Mike did because he couldn't accept the truth.

Sandbag: "How are they going to come up with anything when they don't investigate?"

That is a lie. You're getting as bad as Conman at lying.

GIPSA has conducted many investigations.

Conman: "The smoking gun on GIPSA being nothing but an operative arm of the packers and their interests has already come out in a report on GIPSA, SH."

The report revealed nothing all it did was expose the fact that packers OF ALL SIZES were not complying with the bloated beurocratic paperwork that was required by stupid laws made by packer blamers.


~SH~

Is Tyson a subset of "packers OF ALL SIZES "?

Get real, SH, Tyson lost the case on the merits to a jury and they had to convince a few corrupt or incompetent judges to change the verdict. They did the same thing with the case they quoted--the London Case. It was won by the plaintiffs against one of Tyson's chicken buddies only because the 11th circuit substituted its judgement for that of the jury and rewrote the PSA with "and"s instead of "or"s.

Some are calling for hearings in the Congress on all these issues. Why isn't the leadership of these committees fulfilling their responsibility of oversight? Could it be the MONEY they are getting laundered in from the packing companies? Get a clue.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "That is a lie. You're getting as bad as Conman at lying. GIPSA has conducted many investigations."


Senator Harkins office on the OIG report, "The report found that the agency inflated reports of investigative actions, including classifying routine activities such as sending letters as an investigation. Regional offices were directed to classify certain activities as investigations, and one regional office was reprimanded for failing to expand its definition of investigations."

Tell us again how you've never been refuted with facts. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Get real, SH, Tyson lost the case on the merits to a jury and they had to convince a few corrupt or incompetent judges to change the verdict."

More empty allegations.

Where is your proof that Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were corrupt or incompetant?

Same place as your proof of market manipulation I presume, in your conspiring head.

Sandbag: "Tell us again how you've never been refuted with facts."

Statements and opinions are not facts. Did you see any examples cited? Hell no! All you saw again was OPINIONS that supported your packer blaming bias.


~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...Did you see any examples cited? Hell no!


OIG report.."The report found that the agency inflated reports of investigative actions, including classifying routine activities such as sending letters as an investigation. Regional offices were directed to classify certain activities as investigations, and one regional office was reprimanded for failing to expand its definition of investigations."

If those are not examples Scott, what are they?

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Get real, SH, Tyson lost the case on the merits to a jury and they had to convince a few corrupt or incompetent judges to change the verdict."

More empty allegations.

Where is your proof that Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were corrupt or incompetant?

Same place as your proof of market manipulation I presume, in your conspiring head.

Sandbag: "Tell us again how you've never been refuted with facts."

Statements and opinions are not facts. Did you see any examples cited? Hell no! All you saw again was OPINIONS that supported your packer blaming bias.


~SH~

There are none as blind as those who will not see.

 

[Anonymous]

That tells you nothing Tommy! That is a critic's opinion. I want to hear GIPSA's side of the story too.

How many total investigations were conducted?
How many of those investigations found legitimate PSA violations?
How many investigations were found to be based on unfounded information?
Who defines what a thorough investigation entails?

Last GIPSA report I saw showed a 2% legitimacy rating on allegations of market manipulation and price fixing. How many baseless allegations does GIPSA need to investigate before coming to the realization that most are based on nothing more than the same packer blaming bullsh*t that anyone can read here.

That tells me nothing Tommy. It only tells biased individuals like yourself what you want to hear, NOT WHAT FACTS CAN PROVE.

An opinion that supports your bias is not a fact.

The GIPSA reports I have read have been quite thorough despite the fact that most investigations led to BASELESS ALLEGATIONS, much like Pickett.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

That tells you nothing Tommy! That is a critic's opinion. I want to hear GIPSA's side of the story too.

How many total investigations were conducted?
How many of those investigations found legitimate PSA violations?
How many investigations were found to be based on unfounded information?
Who defines what a thorough investigation entails?

Last GIPSA report I saw showed a 2% legitimacy rating on allegations of market manipulation and price fixing. How many baseless allegations does GIPSA need to investigate before coming to the realization that most are based on nothing more than the same packer blaming bullsh*t that anyone can read here.

That tells me nothing Tommy. It only tells biased individuals like yourself what you want to hear, NOT WHAT FACTS CAN PROVE.

An opinion that supports your bias is not a fact.

The GIPSA reports I have read have been quite thorough despite the fact that most investigations led to BASELESS ALLEGATIONS, much like Pickett.


~SH~

SH, they were not investigating, they were just sweeping all complaints under the rug and claiming the floor was clean. Go read the report yourself if you want to know the answers to the questions you ask. It is available.

What GIPSA reports have you read? Is your reading comprehension as bad when you read a GIPSA report as when you read my posts?